However, John Kerry views Fallon’s move as another sign that the Bush administration does not tolerate dissent in the military.

“Over the last seven Bush years, we’ve seen those who toe the company line get rewarded and those who speak inconvenient truths get retired,” Kerry said in a written statement.

The Washington Times reported that current and former military officials welcomed the news, criticizing Fallon for his failures in Iraq.

And some commentators, including The Dallas Morning News went so far as to decry the admiral for publicly disagreeing with the president’s policies, especially those dealing with a potential military strike against Iran.

“We do think the Pentagon’s top commanders should speak up—privately—when they think the president is contemplating a bad move. But it’s essential that the commander in chief set the policy. Once that’s done, the president’s order must be followed without inappropriate second-guessing in public,” The Morning News writes.

Columnist David Ignatius writes in The Washington Post that Fallon’s headstrong character, part of the reason why he was chosen to run U.S. Central Command in the first place, explains "why Fallon finally crashed and burned Tuesday, tendering his resignation after his blunt comments ... had gotten him into one too many conflicts with the White House and the military brass." Secretary of Defense Robert Gates took a more neutral stance, saying on March 11 that although he thought Fallon made the right decision, "I do not believe there are, in fact, significant differences between his views and administration policy.”

Current and former U.S. officials said that Fallon’s departure does not indicate a step toward military action in Iran. Although Fallon had strongly opposed such an effort, Bush administration officials said that support for the use of military force in Iran had been declining in recent months, and Fallon’s resignation will not change that.

The White House has denied allegations that Fallon’s resignation indicates that the Bush administration doesn’t tolerate dissenting voices in the military. “The president welcomes robust and healthy debates,” said White House press secretary Dana Perino. But Democrats took the resignation as an opportunity to criticize Bush. “Over the last seven Bush years, we’ve seen those who toe the company line get rewarded and those who speak inconvenient truths get retired,” said Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts in a written statement.

Fallon’s replacement will require vast combat experience, diplomatic ability and the wherewithal to handle the situation with Iran. President Bush is expected to pick a senior Army general who will not need much time to become familiar with the situation in the Middle East. “He’s looking for a guy who’ll be a quick study,” said retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, former commandant of the Army War College. “He’s also looking for someone who can take a strategic view of radical Islam rather than just focusing on the tactical fight. And he needs to be a person who’s trusted in the region.”

It is unlikely that a new head of U.S. Central Command will be chosen before May, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ spokesman said on Thursday. “We are only beginning to turn our focus ahead to looking at potential candidates for a replacement,” said a Pentagon spokesman.

The Washington Times reports that many current and former military officials welcomed the news of Fallon’s resignation, criticizing the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East for his failures in Iraq.

After hearing of Fallon’s intended resignation, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said on March 11 that “Admiral Fallon reached this difficult decision entirely on his own. I believe it was the right thing to do even though I do not believe there are, in fact, significant differences between his views and administration policy.”

The stubbornness that got Fallon chosen to run the U.S. Central Command, eventually led to his resignation after he got in repeated conflicts with the White House and military brass, writes columnist David Ignatius at The Washington Post. “I understand the White House’s desire for an orderly chain of command and the need for military officers to trust each other’s discretion. But in the case of Fallon, I see a lot of good that came from having a headstrong blowtorch of a man speaking truth to power.”

A Los Angeles Times opinion piece says that the tension between Fallon and Petraeus is indicative of a broader national security dilemma: “Field generals always want more troops for as long as possible, to minimize casualties and avoid giving up battlefield gains. The top brass in Washington are paid to plan the endgame and prepare for the next conflict, which is why tensions between Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs of Staff will persist after Fallon.”

Slate’s Fred Kaplan writes that the CENTCOM commander has only himself to blame for his fall, despite Democratic lawmakers’ suspicions that he fell victim to the White House’s intolerance. Kaplan also insists that Fallon’s resignation does not mean the United States will pursue a war with Iran.

Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly says that although liberals are probably sympathetic to Fallon, there should be a limit to how much a military official can express in public. “I’ll stick with civilian control of the military, even if I don’t happen to like the current civilians. It sounds like Fallon crossed the line once too often,” Drum said.

The Dallas Morning News writes that Fallon’s resignation was the right move, and criticizes the admiral for publicly disagreeing with the president’s policies. “We do think the Pentagon’s top commanders should speak up—privately—when they think the president is contemplating a bad move. But it’s essential that the commander in chief set the policy. Once that’s done, the president’s order must be followed without inappropriate second-guessing in public.”

An International Herald Tribune op-ed calls Fallon‘s resignation “obviously forced“ and a “worrisome sign” that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have not learned the value of letting military chiefs publicly express their opinions. Although there is merit in the idea that military leaders should express dissenting policy views only in private, “in this particular case ... the usual strictures against airing policy differences in public should not have been enforced. For one thing, the Bush administration has a history of stumbling into grievous strategic errors when it has refused to heed sound public warnings from senior military leaders,” the Tribune writes.